Jump to content
ridgey

Advances in Software development?

Recommended Posts

hi guys,,

this is directed at staff, but also members who wish to chip in..

Bascially my question is simple, has there been new innovations in programming flight simulation software, where your not only able to increase the quality but also the performance?

Or is it just that quality increases, but performance is linked to better computer components?

I say this, in particualr relation to the aerosoft airbus project, and what the guys at PMDG are doing, where they can give us better quality, with better performance?

To me this is amazing news, so my question really is

1.) Are you finding new ways [not everyday but the same expression] of programming software to give us quality and performance increases?

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No innovation. Just refinement. In fact rendering engines are moving further and further away from the basic concept of FS display rendering, not toward it. Effectively, any increase is a by-product.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No innovation. Just refinement. In fact rendering engines are moving further and further away from the basic concept of FS display rendering, not toward it. Effectively, any increase is a by-product.

Right. There is no way to show a single polygon faster in FSX, there are a few things that make series of polygons faster and there are loads of things that can make it 'seem' faster. See a game engine is what it is, MS is not going to solve the glaring problems in FSX and is most certainly not going to change the totally outdated FS2004 engine. So all we can do is use the engine as best as we can. I dare say that the pure FSX products (mixed FS2004/FSX products got a few more issues) are fully up to the state of the art standard. There is NO other FSX aircraft addons that shows polygons as fast as the Catalina. And I am willing to say the same for the Airbus. We know how to do it, but we got to work in the limitations we got.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But a lot can be done with refinements, still. Tried the beta of YMST v2.0 from Orbx today, they managed to totally get rid of texture popping (something neraly every texture intensive airport is plagued with), and increase overall performance there. Did two test flights, one with the old version, one with the new (1.6mp patch to a 600MB airport) - average frames went from 18 to 26.

Pretty impressive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly. But this is indeed refinement, not innovation. Finding better ways of working within the coding constraints is, by definition, evolution not revolution.

As I remarked the other day, now the code is locked away in the MS vaults there is simply no possibility of revolution.

It's the very definition of `obsolescence`, but that need not suggest that the product is outmoded. A very different concept... the overheads built into FSX means there is life in the old dog yet... and for that we can thank ACES. Just as we can curse them for not implementing the suggestions at beta.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I correct in saying then that the FS community, probably more appropriately the MSFS based community, faces a double edged move forward in the mid term.

First, only slow and evolutionary advances in performance that are restricted by the MSFS code. This will at least allow for the continued use of legacy addons as well as the continued development of freeware and payware addons to keep refreshing the sim experience. When one considers how long and ardent the FS 9 advocats have continued to sing the praise of and keep alive that engine in the community, it is safe to say that a large group of FSX users will also exist somewhat appeased for many years as well.

Second, it is only through the development of completely new flight simulation systems, such as the Aerosoft initiative, where revolutionary advances will be seen. In fact is that not the real benefit of this initiative? But new simulation engines and revolutionary advances bring with them the dilemma for most users that legacy addons will not be compatible and thus one must in effect start again to rebuild their hobby, for most a financial burden. For such a new system to be adopted by a majority of the community quickly, the enticements must be substantial. Backward compatibility is always an enticement. Barring this then an inexpensive and quickly produced "patch" for compatability would also work. Of course if the revolutionary advances are comparable to going from analog black and white TV to digital the incentive is undeniable.

My question then is, what are the major inhibitors, technical and financial, in any potential new FS system to having backward compatibility ( or patchwork) with major FSX addons?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Backwards compatibility is the curse of FS, and has been for many years. It is precisely because of this insidious `requirement` that FSX is in the half-outmoded, out-of-step-with-technology place it is today.

When one goes to buy a new car, one does not expect that many - or indeed ANY - of the enhancements we added to our previous vehicle could be used with the new vehicle. OK we might be able to use the odd thing here and there but by and large, new means parting company with the old...

For some reason we simmers think we are issued with a god-given right to use something that was intended for an old sim version with the very latest. One needs only look at the miffology in the tech support forums when simmers discover that the product they've used for the past seven years doesn't function perfectly with the sim version released a few weeks ago, or was designed in the days of Windoze 98 version and it's scandalous that it doesn't work under Windows 7 to see how this stymies and affects attitudes - and with it, progress.

So to answer the questions, yes, I fear that as mid-life progresses those `evolutionary` steps will get smaller and smaller, and more importantly in these parsimonious times, the cost-effectiveness will become less and less. FSX developers were mistaken in their beliefs of future trends in technology when FSX was designed, and even the SP2/Acceleration patch is nothing more than a band aid on a gunshot wound. Yes, progress in CPU and GPU HAS given us the opportunity to enjoy reasonable performance, but three years after FSX was released, there is still little hardware out there that is capable of running FSX at full tilt. And that is NOT caused by the hardware, but rather by the software being designed for a non-existent trend. ONLY a new sim can reverse that trend.

As for the financial burden of retro-compatiblity? Well it's less than the financial burden of upgrading the hardware isn't it? And it's not as if one loses the ability to make use of the `old` software. Even allowing for Mathijs modest hardware budget advice, that's a HUGE number of addons...

As with FS9/FSX, if you want to continue to use FS9 alongside FSX there's nothing to stop you. Nothing at all.

But at the end of the day the financial burden of software purchase is far less of an imposition on the user than the aggravation factor of not being able to get reasonable performance in-game from technology that runs everything else available today without problems.

And THAT is why FSX is out-of-step. And why it needs a fresh, new product starting from scratch.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Snave.

I have only recently become involved with FS as a hobby but have also then a desire to learn more about this hobby. I have a modest awareness of technical issues in modeling and simulation from a training background and have no programming background.

I see that to become more aware and familiar with the issues I will need to review the topic on Aerosoft Flight Simulator 2012 thoroughly to know what is being identified there as a start point. I do not want to become a practicing technologist, rather I want to understand issues and points of view so that I can follow discussions with some knowledge sufficient to let me see the reason and rationale behind statements and points of view.

Any suggestions that you can pass on as to other appropriate sources of gaining the knowledge at the level I am seeking would be appreciated.

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right. There is no way to show a single polygon faster in FSX, there are a few things that make series of polygons faster and there are loads of things that can make it 'seem' faster. See a game engine is what it is, MS is not going to solve the glaring problems in FSX and is most certainly not going to change the totally outdated FS2004 engine. So all we can do is use the engine as best as we can. I dare say that the pure FSX products (mixed FS2004/FSX products got a few more issues) are fully up to the state of the art standard. There is NO other FSX aircraft addons that shows polygons as fast as the Catalina. And I am willing to say the same for the Airbus. We know how to do it, but we got to work in the limitations we got.

Then explain TEXTURE FLOW from ORBX, explain why ORBX airports look 1,00000 times better then yours, and run very very very good, and getting better. I am beta testing the TEXTURE FLOW from them and it made a HUGE difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely if you are testing TEXTURE FLOW, and it's that IMPORTANT it NEEDS to have CAPITAL LETTERS, then it is YOU who should be explaining it to US..?

Clearly you don't understand what `Texture Flow` actually is, nor do you properly follow other topics in the forum or else you would have seen this has already been discussed. And dismissed as the perfect example of `refinement` rather than `innovation`.

...But don't let US stop YOU from explaining everything about TEXTURE FLOW, seeing as how you are the nearest thing to a resident expert.

We await the technical details and your TEXT to FLOW, with interest... :rolleyes:

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

figlet -ct -f man "Texture flow" laugh.gif

more seriously if they have found a way to accelerate texture loading in .MDL models they could share it with the rest of the world rolleyes.gif

Etien

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't worry, they haven't. All they have done is continue the refinement where ACES left off. Unless JORDAN knows BETTER, of course... :lol:

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless JORDAN knows BETTER, of course... :lol:

That really neccesary Simon? Your previous post got the "message" through in my opinion.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is Texture Flow. and why is it being so easily dismissed? Where can I find the best information on it? Link please :)

Thanks,

Search please, it has only recently been discussed in this forum. Use search word

Venema

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...